AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gone With The Wind
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gone With The Wind - Page 2

post #31 of 296
11/8/09 at 4:39pm
Does anyone know if Wal Mart is going to release a single disc version like they did with "The Wizard Of Oz" It would be nice just to have the movie on one disc without all of the extra stuff I don't want.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 296
11/8/09 at 8:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theKrouser View Post

Does anyone know if Wal Mart is going to release a single disc version like they did with "The Wizard Of Oz" It would be nice just to have the movie on one disc without all of the extra stuff I don't want.

Supposedly Target got those rights. Check the other GWTW thread for a picture of the Target 1-discer.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 296
11/8/09 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

Do the actors in this film speak normally or with that over acting style that many old films seem to use?

Thanks,
Tom

Duh!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 296
11/9/09 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theKrouser View Post

Does anyone know if Wal Mart is going to release a single disc version like they did with "The Wizard Of Oz" It would be nice just to have the movie on one disc without all of the extra stuff I don't want.

I think because the film is four hours long, and has a natural intermission, the film will be on two discs regardless of what extras are included in which edition. I think Target's two disc version will be the only budget version available.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 296
11/9/09 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theKrouser View Post

Does anyone know if Wal Mart is going to release a single disc version like they did with "The Wizard Of Oz" It would be nice just to have the movie on one disc without all of the extra stuff I don't want.

My small town has a Walmart but no Target so no special Walmart 1 disc release means no release day purchase for me. Importing this from the UK will probably be my only option. I'm an impatient guy so wailting two weeks past release date for it to arrive would be tough.;
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 296
11/9/09 at 10:42am
Try importing the UK version.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 296
11/9/09 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad R View Post

I think because the film is four hours long, and has a natural intermission, the film will be on two discs regardless of what extras are included in which edition. I think Target's two disc version will be the only budget version available.

The film is definitely only on one BD....DVD Beaver already has a review up of it that confirms this fact....
Target will be selling a one disc version exclusively with only the film and an audio commentary track (you can see a couple pictures a Target employee took of it in their store's stockroom on the forums at blu-ray.com)....Walmart may be getting a regular case version with both BDs, as they have previously carried stripped down versions of deluxe releases like Woodstock and Oz, but we probably won't know for sure until next week....I seriously doubt Walmart will be carrying the big UCE box set in stores, but GWTW seems like too big of a catalog title for them not to sell at least some version of it....
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 296
11/9/09 at 9:48pm
I am severly hoping walmart gets the 2 disc edition identical to the one in the UK.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 296
11/10/09 at 6:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

I am severly hoping walmart gets the 2 disc edition identical to the one in the UK.

You and me both....
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 296
11/10/09 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad R View Post

I think because the film is four hours long, and has a natural intermission, the film will be on two discs regardless of what extras are included in which edition. I think Target's two disc version will be the only budget version available.

Does every older classic film HAVE to be 4 hours long? It just seems like they are. I guess that was before sequels were invented. Im curious about this flick as Ive never seen it. Its one of those "cant miss" titles so I'll rent and prepare to be wowed by it. I mean... it is THAT good....right? Cant miss? Ive heard that phrase before. Im cautiously optimistic.

We shall see. There had better be some good battle scenes and CGI though.

Just kidding....
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 296
11/10/09 at 2:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Does every older classic film HAVE to be 4 hours long? It just seems like they are.

Nope.

Casablanca
The Maltese Falcon
The Asphalt Jungle
Sunset Boulevard
Metropolis
Phantom of the Opera (Chaney)
Frankenstein (Karloff)
Dracula (Lugosi)
The Wizard of Oz
Snow White (Disney)
Etc., etc., etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Im curious about this flick as Ive never seen it. Its one of those "cant miss" titles so I'll rent and prepare to be wowed by it. I mean... it is THAT good....right? Cant miss? Ive heard that phrase before. Im cautiously optimistic.

We shall see. There had better be some good battle scenes and CGI though.

Just kidding....

GWTW is the mother of all chick flicks, but everyone, man or woman, should see it at least once, though I suspect it could be offensive to Blacks, and understandably so. It's a spectacle of acting and filmmaking and storytelling.

Next you're going to say that you've never seen Charlton Heston's BEN HUR....
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 296
11/10/09 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

everyone, man or woman, should see it at least once

In terms of ticket sales, GWTW is the number one film of all time. It has grossed over 1.45 billion adjusted dollars. That alone makes it a must-see, to see what attracted so many people to it. It represents the Hollywood dream factory at its zenith.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 296
11/10/09 at 2:21pm
It appears the US boxed set has the entire movie on one dual layered BD. This is what I gleaned from the review on dvdbeaver.com. Am I reading it right? If so, we shouldn't need to worry about a single disc release, movie only, having a reduced bit rate.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 296
11/10/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

Nope.

Casablanca
The Maltese Falcon
The Asphalt Jungle
Sunset Boulevard
Metropolis
Phantom of the Opera (Chaney)
Frankenstein (Karloff)
Dracula (Lugosi)
The Wizard of Oz
Snow White (Disney)
Etc., etc., etc.

GWTW is the mother of all chick flicks, but everyone, man or woman, should see it at least once, though I suspect it could be offensive to Blacks, and understandably so. It's a spectacle of acting and filmmaking and storytelling.

Next you're going to say that you've never seen Charlton Heston's BEN HUR....

Oh I know they arent all 4 hours. I have not seen Ben Hur. Its on the list. Classics that I have seen:

Lawrence of Arabia - Liked it a lot, but a tad long IMO.
Man Who Knew too much - Very good
The Third Man - Not my thing
Becket - Liked it
Vertigo - Pretty good
Quo Vadis - YUK
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 296
11/10/09 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Does every older classic film HAVE to be 4 hours long? It just seems like they are. I guess that was before sequels were invented. Im curious about this flick as Ive never seen it. Its one of those "cant miss" titles so I'll rent and prepare to be wowed by it. I mean... it is THAT good....right? Cant miss? Ive heard that phrase before. Im cautiously optimistic.

We shall see. There had better be some good battle scenes and CGI though.

Just kidding....

Don't worry, when Lucas or Spielberg buys the rights they'll fix all the politically incorrect scenes and add lots of CGI!
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 296
11/10/09 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

GWTW is the mother of all chick flicks

I know you're being complimentary but a chick flick this movie is not.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 296
11/10/09 at 8:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

I know you're being complimentary but a chick flick this movie is not.

Then why is it perhaps my wife's favorite movie? She is a major chick flick watcher!

From Wikipedia:

Chick flick is slang for a film designed to appeal to a female target audience. The term was first used in 1992. Although many types of films may be directed toward the female gender, "chick flick" is typically used only in reference to films that are heavy with emotion or contain themes that are relationship-based (though not necessarily romantic).

I think GWTW fits the bill! After all, what is the percentage of women vs. men who have read the novel? I suspect the # of women beats the # of men quite handily.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 296
11/11/09 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

Then why is it perhaps my wife's favorite movie? She is a major chick flick watcher!

From Wikipedia:

Chick flick is slang for a film designed to appeal to a female target audience. The term was first used in 1992. Although many types of films may be directed toward the female gender, "chick flick" is typically used only in reference to films that are heavy with emotion or contain themes that are relationship-based (though not necessarily romantic).

I think GWTW fits the bill! After all, what is the percentage of women vs. men who have read the novel? I suspect the # of women beats the # of men quite handily.

Most chicks I know can't even sit through a 90-minute movie without getting squirmish. Forget about a 240-minute one.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 296
11/11/09 at 5:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipper IV View Post

Most chicks I know can't even sit through a 90-minute movie without getting squirmish. Forget about a 240-minute one.

Yeah really, If and when we watch this I bet we'll have to break it up. 240 minutes of talking. Eeeeek.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 296
11/11/09 at 5:43am
Thread Starter 
"If and when"? You mean you (and your wife/friend, I assume) might go through your whole lives without ever watching GWTW?

How, then, will you ever learn about birthin' babies?

There is an intermission at the appropriate time. Selznick knew that no one could sit for 4 hours straight, either.

FWIW, you'll see a young Superman in one of the sequences near the beginning. Unfortunately, he was not yet invulnerable to bullets or cannon fire.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 296
11/11/09 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Does every older classic film HAVE to be 4 hours long? It just seems like they are. I guess that was before sequels were invented. Im curious about this flick as Ive never seen it. Its one of those "cant miss" titles so I'll rent and prepare to be wowed by it. I mean... it is THAT good....right?

Actually, for its time, GWTW is the exception, and not the rule. In those "classic" days, the magic running time hovered around 100 minutes, more or less. 120 minutes, or 132 minutes was considered quite long. Because GWTW was already a publishing phenomenon, the audiences expected a faithful adaptation, so it became one of the rare long films of its day.

Longer films, in the 3-hour + range really did not come into vogue until the 50's, when Hollywood started churning out Biblical epics. You can add The Ten Commandments to the 4-hour list as well. The long 3 hours + epics basically died out in the 60's, but exceptions to occur from time-to-time. Usually the long films are either epic in nature or based on long popular novels.

I actually think movies are too long today. I don't mind sitting through a 3 hr or 4 hr epic like, say, LOTR or Patton. I just have a problem with the fact that most movies today seem to run at least 120 or more minutes, when the 100 minute range would work just as well. 2 and a half hours for a James Bond film or a Michael Bay actioner is too long IMO

Quote:


Cant miss? Ive heard that phrase before. Im cautiously optimistic.

We shall see. There had better be some good battle scenes and CGI though.

Just kidding....

I would not say GWTW is a "can't miss" film. It's basically a romance film, and I have no doubt some will find it long and boring and too "chick flick". I have seen it many times, starting with its theatrical re-release in 1939. However, I am not quite sold on a new edition of it. I don't think I have even watched all of the last UCE DVD version. I just put it on, and looked at some scenes, thought it looked great, but never sat down for the required 4 hours. There are only so many times I feel like re-watching the entire 4 hour saga.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 296
11/11/09 at 8:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Try importing the UK version.

Do we know if everything on the UK version is region free? Will one be able to watch the documentary on the films of 1939 and all the "making of" stuff, or will those be region locked?
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 296
11/11/09 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

Do we know if everything on the UK version is region free? Will one be able to watch the documentary on the films of 1939 and all the "making of" stuff, or will those be region locked?

Warner's discs are always region free.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 296
11/11/09 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

I have seen it many times, starting with its theatrical re-release in 1939.

That was 70 years ago. How old were you when you saw it?

Art
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 296
11/11/09 at 2:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

I have seen it many times, starting with its theatrical re-release in 1939.

Actually, 1939 was its RELEASE date, not its re-release date. GWTW is the reason The Wizard of Oz didn't get more Oscars.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 296
11/11/09 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

Actually, 1939 was its RELEASE date, not its re-release date. GWTW is the reason The Wizard of Oz didn't get more Oscars.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant 1967, which I think was the fake widescreen re-RElease. I was 12 in 1967, so I definitely missed the original 1939 release. Must have had the year 1939 burned on my brain.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 296
11/11/09 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

Actually, for its time, GWTW is the exception, and not the rule. In those "classic" days, the magic running time hovered around 100 minutes, more or less. 120 minutes, or 132 minutes was considered quite long. Because GWTW was already a publishing phenomenon, the audiences expected a faithful adaptation, so it became one of the rare long films of its day.

Longer films, in the 3-hour + range really did not come into vogue until the 50's, when Hollywood started churning out Biblical epics. You can add The Ten Commandments to the 4-hour list as well. The long 3 hours + epics basically died out in the 60's, but exceptions to occur from time-to-time. Usually the long films are either epic in nature or based on long popular novels.

I actually think movies are too long today. I don't mind sitting through a 3 hr or 4 hr epic like, say, LOTR or Patton. I just have a problem with the fact that most movies today seem to run at least 120 or more minutes, when the 100 minute range would work just as well. 2 and a half hours for a James Bond film or a Michael Bay actioner is too long IMO

I would not say GWTW is a "can't miss" film. It's basically a romance film, and I have no doubt some will find it long and boring and too "chick flick". I have seen it many times, starting with its theatrical re-release in 1939. However, I am not quite sold on a new edition of it. I don't think I have even watched all of the last UCE DVD version. I just put it on, and looked at some scenes, thought it looked great, but never sat down for the required 4 hours. There are only so many times I feel like re-watching the entire 4 hour saga.

Good info... makes sense. Im looking forward to seeing it. It will either be a huge hit or I wont even finish it.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 296
11/11/09 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipper IV View Post

Most chicks I know can't even sit through a 90-minute movie without getting squirmish. Forget about a 240-minute one.

Titanic was 3hr. 20 and I never saw any squirmish chicks in the audience once and I saw it a few times in the theater.

Reply
Reply
post #59 of 296
11/11/09 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

See link here.


Bad news guys, the ad has leaked for next week and Gone With The Wind (Target exclusive 1-disc version) is $34.99. However it will be $12.99 on black friday!
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 296
11/12/09 at 2:21am
Was looking forward to getting the UCE from Amazon (especially since I have Prime), but after finding out Target will have a movie only version for $12.99 I had to cancel the order.
The package still looks great, but the more I think about it, the less of a good idea it seems. I don't really need any of the stuff in the box set, and while I'd like to see WTLR again, I can always netflix it or buy it on its own if it hits Big Lots or is seriously marked down. For the other extras, I can just keep my current DVD version. None of the other 'exclusive' Bd extras look indispensable either.

Hate the cheesy photoshop jacket art, but for $13 I'll have to go with that, and use the other $35 I'll be saving towards other stuff.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gone With The Wind